Epstein Secrets

pstein's house. Sec In Re Grand Jury Subpoenas Duces Tecum OLY-63 and OLY.64,Nu. F(31 07-103(WPB) (S.D. Fla. July 31, 2007). At the time she tiled Detective Recarey's affidavit, she knew it contained numerous material misrepresentations, including gross misstatements of witness statements and other evidence. Secon

Jury's indictment, the Chief took the unprecedented step of releasing his Department's raw police reports of the investigation (including Detective Recarey's unedited written reports of witness statements and witness identification information), that were later proven to be highly inaccurate transcript

d serious misrepresentations before a court. On July 31, 2007, in the grand-jury litigation arising out of this case, she filed the "Declaration of Joseph Recarey," attaching the state detective's affidavit in support of a search warrant for Epstein's house. Sec In Re Grand Jury Subpoenas Duces Tecum OLY-63 an

aw police reports of the investigation (including Detective Recarey's unedited written reports of witness statements

for the purpose of " requi ment fly in the face of the two Suprems Court decisions addressing that element. See Hansen'. Huff, 291 U.S. 559 (1934); Mortensen. United States, 322 U.S. 369 (1944). Santos and Cuellar speak loudly and clearly against prosecutors seeing such elasticity in federal criminal stat

on Jeff was unable to touch her buttocks". There is no mention in her There were three Probable Cause Affidavits prepared and executed by Detective Recarey on the same date. The affidavits arc in all material respects identical and we here refer to the one concerning Epstein. It is annexed at Tab 2. Be

ed behind Epstein's desk". Clearly omitted from both the Police Report and the Probable Cause Affidavit is the fact that the PBPD, and specifically Detective Recarey, knew about the cameras since the cameras were installed in 2003, with the help of the PBPD, to address the then of cash from Epstein's home. This

een. I'm 19 now this last March." (Sworn Statement of 10/12/05). 4 In addition to giving a sworn statement at the PBPD Station, conversations with Detective Recarey while being transported to and from the station were also recorded, This excerpt is taken from the recording of ;raveling from the station. 08-807

.7 The Supreme Court has repeatedly interpreted this language to require that the illegal activity be the dominant motive for the travel. See, e.g., Mortensen 'United States, 322 U.S. 369, 373 (1944) (". . .an intention that the women or girls shall engage in the conduct outlawed by Section 2 must be foun

m Gerald Lefcourt (Appendix A), you will see that most of the letter is an attack on the police report and probable cause affidavit drafted by Det. Joe Recarey from PBPD. Neither document is ideal and his interviews of the girls and other investigative steps had some problems (although did an incredibly in-

dn't wait" for her to turn 18 so that he could take them on trips. 52 EFTA00234568 Very early in the investigation, the FBI and I decided to put Recarey's police report and PC Affidavit to the side and to look at the case with fresh eyes. The facts discussed herein are based upon a personal review o

prove that the defendant's sole purpose for traveling and transporting the individual was to have the individual engage in illegal sexual activity. Mortensen. United States, 322 U.S. 369, 374 (1944); Crespo I. United States, 151 F.2d 44, 46 (1st Cir. 1945). This offense carries a statutory maximum of ten

for the purpose of “ requirement fly in the face of the two Supreme Court decisions addressing that element. See Hansen v. Huff, 291 U.S. 559 (1934); Mortensen v. United States, 322 U.S. 369 (1944). Santos and Cuellar speak loudly and clearly against prosecutors seeing such elasticity in federal criminal sta

d Jury’s indictment, the Chief took the unprecedented step of releasing his Department’s raw police reports of the investigation (including Detective Recarey’s unedited written reports of witness statements and witness identification information), that were later proven to be highly inaccurate transcriptio

aw police reports of the investigation (including Detective Recarey’s unedited written reports of witness statements

g out of this case, she filed the “Declaration of Joseph Recarey,” attaching the state detective’s affidavit in su

prove that the defendant's sole purpose for traveling and transporting the individual was to have the individual engage in illegal sexual activity. Mortensen v. United States , 322 U.S. 369, 374 (1944); Crespo v. United States , 151 F.2d 44, 46 (1st Cir. 1945). This offense carries a statutory maximum of

om Gerald Lefcourt (Appendix A), you will see that most of the letter is an attack on the police report and probable cause affidavit drafted by Det. Joe Recarey from PBPD. Neither document is ideal and his interviews of the girls and other investigative steps had some problems (although did an incredibly in

rassment. (It did, however, lead other girls to come forward and tell their stories.) Very early in the investigation, the FBI and I decided to put Recarey's police report and PC Affidavit to the side and to look at the case with fresh eyes. The facts discussed herein are based upon a personal review o